Paying disabled workers less than minimum wage is wrong...

I swear to god the federal government is trolling me. So Goodwill and I have a complicated relationship. A family member of mine is employed with them as a technical writer and she also works with their consumers (mentally disabled individuals). Additionally, Goodwill does do some good providing employment with the mentally disabled and providing goods to the low income.

All that said, the more and more I hear about Goodwill the more disturbing the whole non-profit seems. Like many non-profits, Goodwill is operating much more like a corporation because non-profits have to compete with private for profit companies. On Friday, Katie Mcdonough wrote a piece for Salon on disabled workers pay from Goodwill, specifically, that Goodwill is paying less than minimum wage.

In 2011, Goodwill Industries (a multibillion-dollar non-profit) paid workers with disabilities in Pennsylvania wages as low as 22, 38, and 41 cents an hour, according to Labor Department records obtained by NBC News. Goodwill isn’t the only non-profit doing this. Apparently, there is a loophole in the federal labor law due to a Depression-era loophole in federal labor law, as reported by NBC:

“Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was passed in 1938, allows employers to obtain special minimum wage certificates from the Department of Labor. The certificates give employers the right to pay disabled workers according to their abilities, with no bottom limit to the wage…The non-profit certificate holders can also place employees in outside, for-profit workplaces including restaurants, retail stores, hospitals and even Internal Revenues Service centers.”

Goodwill defends its practice as an attempt to provide jobs to people who need and want them, but disability and labor rights advocates call the loophole exploitative. It traps disabled workers in a system that places their value below those without disabilities. The Fair Waged for Workers with Disabilities Act of 2013 (H.R. 831) currently being considered in Congress to repeal Section 14 (c) and mandate employers fairly compensate workers. This faces fierce opposition from trade associations representing employers who benefit from the loophole.

Obviously, this bill should pass, but probably won’t. Awesome. *facepalm*

People lie about sex

I know contain your shock. I can’t believe I missed this article from Tracy Clark-Flory on Salon. I’m a little disappointed in myself. Anyway, I find this so interesting because I never lied about sexual partners until about five or six years ago, and the relationship went bad anyway so I figure it isn’t really worth it. However, the thought does cross my mind when I meet someone new and this conversation comes up, if it comes up. On an intellectual level, my sexual history is no one’s business, but my own. This of course is different for someone who has contracted an STI, and then I feel you are obligated to share that information with a new partner even if condoms are being used. But another part of me thinks sometimes it is just easier to reflect back the expectation set by my partner…not lying exactly, just let him/her believe what he/she wants.

Flory is discussing the new study out of Ohio State University that found sex is the one area that people lie consistently. The study found that both men and women lie about their sexual behavior to conform to gender expectations.  

The researchers had college students fill out a questionnaire about how often they engage in over 100 different behaviors. Due to a previous study the behaviors could be categorized as typically male or female. Half the participants were hooked to a polygraph machine and told as much. However, the machine didn’t actually work, but the participants didn’t know that, but it was there to make the participants feel pressured to tell the truth. What the researchers found was that both males and females regardless of being hooked to the polygraph machine readily admitted behaviors that didn’t conform to gender norms.

This of course changed when it came to sex. The men hooked to the polygraph reported fewer sexual partners that the men who didn’t think their honesty was being measured. The opposite is true for women. The polygraph attached women reported more sexual partners than the polygraph attached men. Researcher Terri Fisher said, “Sexuality seemed to be the one area where people felt some concern if they didn’t meet the stereotypes of a typical man or typical woman.”

Again, try to keep it together, I know you’re shocked. The study says, “What is known about gender differences in sexual behaviors comes largely from studies involving self-reporting and therefore may be subject to culturally-based gender expectations and stereotypes that could then result in biased reporting.”

Another part of me can’t help but wonder why people continue to lie? I get being in high school and lying to fit in, but as college students (adults, really), why does the desire remain? Especially in a research setting. I lied to my partner because he was making a very big deal out of it believing that because I’m a feminist I must have a very high number. It was becoming an issue in our relationship (and no comments about my awful taste in men, I’m well aware) despite my consistently clear STI results, so I low balled the number. Specifically, I went lower than his number. But I have never lied to my doctors, researchers, or friends. Though I discovered a few years ago that my friends (many being lesbians) and I have a different metric system for counting (I was using a hetero-normative one, shame on me). I’d be interested if in the women in the study deceive their physicians because that could have potential dangerous implications.

Obama says something sexist and progressive men get real defensive.

I wasn’t going to write about President Obama’s sexist comment because it doesn’t register the same way for me, say stripping women of reproductive rights. It is still on the list, but further done with “bitch, cunt, whore, ugly, etc” as language used to silence women. Because talking about a woman’s looks objectifies her and removes her from the conversation.

However, Twitter was invented so all the woman writing articles on how discussing a woman’s appearance is inappropriate in a professional peer setting is getting the “stupid hypocritical bitch” tweets because everyone is an idiot and goodness dies on the Internet.

I favor Irin Carmon’s piece from Salon, but there are so many good pieces out there. So, you may not know this, but California Attorney General Kamala Harris is apparently considered conventionally attractive; we know this because the President of the Unites States felt the need to comment on her appearance. And when feminists pointed out that our “feminist” President said something sexist the Internet when “not possible” shut up you “pearl clutching” women.

You see women’s appearances are always consumed by the public and considered public property. So no one thinks anything of President Obama saying someone is attractive or a cat-caller or a boss introducing an intern as young and pretty. Except everyone should because women’s bodies aren’t public property. People (particularly men) say things about women’s appearance all the time, sometimes flattering, sometimes not. Look no further to see both extremes than this video by SNL on H-Rod and Palin. However, there is another side to this as well.

In this specific instance, President Obama’s comment stating California Attorney General Kamala Harris is “by far, the best looking attorney general” places the emphasis on her appearance over her work. It devalues her work regardless of what Obama says about it because she is now the woman Obama thinks is attractive.

Carmon goes on to point to other examples of President Obama commenting on women’s appearance in inappropriate ways, Vice President Biden does it, and a variety of others. She notes that women are trapped in this can’t win situation where their success and intelligence always must follow the desires of men. Additionally, this is true for women in public space or when appearance is completely irrelevant.

Additionally, Carmon points out how hard it is for “progressive” men because the “pearl clutching” women who don’t want the unsolicited feedback (good or bad), who think we all need to chill the fuck out. After all Obama and Harris might be friends, so we’re all blowing this out of proportion.

All that said, even if you turn this around and point out Obama wouldn’t say this about a man that doesn’t really go far enough because men are not judged by the same standards. So yeah, last year, Men’s Health did a piece on Congressman Aaron Schock running a photo of him shirtless and discussing his physical appearance, but it was in the context of fitness. How many articles are written about H-Rod getting old that aren’t about her health?

Carmon recommends if this is confusing for you to borrow a term from discrimination law—“BFOQ, which stands for bona fide occupational qualifications.” This means employers can discriminate only if the qualities in question are necessary to the job like models. When Carmon asks some questions to help gauge the appropriateness of the comment:

Are you having sex with this person you want to tell everyone is attractive?

Are you trying to get them to agree to have sex with you?

Is attractiveness part of their job and thus a professional attribute to be discussed like any other?

Are you, perhaps, the cheek-pinching great-uncle of this person and thus entitled to a little slack?

Personally, I have a lot of attractive colleagues, any of whom I considered friends. I would never reference any of them as attractive in a professional setting.

“Hey, you’re looking for someone to assist on a IVP case? My friend M is gorgeous, yeah, and a lawyer” is ridiculous because she is more than her physical appearance. Often woman’s appearance is employed to devalue their skill sets. Nor, would I respond to someone looking for a media person to pitch an idea to a network with, “Hey my friend R, total hottie, and yeah he can so do that.” Because it by the structure of the sentence places his qualifications as second to his appearance. So don’t worry the California attorney general is attractive so I’m sure she  also very qualified. 

In conclusion, I think it is important to note the speed at which the “progressive” menfolk have gotten real defensive. I like to criticize Obama. I feel like I have a better chance of changing the mind of someone on our team than the Right. However, the Obamabots are out in full force. He said something stupid. Call him out, and move on. It is the only way they learn. If you refuse or defend him then you are part of the problem (and that problem is patriarchy, check your privilege friends).

 

Oh Fuck No: Steubenville continues

There was a beautiful write up about Steubenville on feministing about not wanting to live in a world where this is acceptable. I understand the sentiment, but this shit just fuels the flames and fires me up. I know at least half the people who read this blog are dudes. I don’t have any idea why mind you, but I know who you are. Thus, I understand your knowledge about “mean girls” originates with Tina Fey, maybe a sister, a female friend, or maybe even a gay friend who understands women. But this shit happens, and it can be way worse than a “burn book,” boyfriend stealing, and name calling. 

 

Jezebel had a piece written by Doug Barry on two teenage girls being charged with menacing Steubenville’s Jane Doe on social media. Menacing? How bad could that be? Oh, bodily harm and death threats, my bad. The two girls had taken to Facebook and Twitter after Richmond and Mays were convicted to threaten the life of Jane Doe, who by the way is asking any donations be made to a local women’s shelter (amazing). 

 

Attorney General Mike DeWine announced one girl had been charged with aggravated menacing after “weaponizing” her Twitter account to threaten Jane Doe. Question: “weaponinzing” a Twitter account? I’m not sure if this is awful or amazing. Next step in drones? Maybe a new app on Facebook? DOD hands off my ideas. DeWine added that another girl had been charged for making similar threats on Facebook. The girls are 16 and 15 respectively. 

 

Both girls will be charged in juvenile court. DeWine issued a statement to send a message to those who hide on the Internet:

“Let me be clear. Threatening a teenage rape victim will not be tolerated. If anyone makes a threat verbally or via Internet, we will take it seriously, we will find you, and we will arrest you.”

 DeWine is going to be pretty busy in the next few months because he will convene a grand jury next month to continue investigating the Steubenville rape case, specifically if anyone at the parties are guilty for not stopping the rape or reporting it. According to the Plain Dealer so far there have been 56 interviews, including the owners of the home where the party occurred, the Steubenville high school principal, superintendent, and 27 football coaches. An additional, 16 people refused to cooperate for various reasons. 

 

Of course this continues…Can anyone explain to me how Reno Saccoccia, Steubenville’s head football coach hasn’t been fired? Katie Mcdonough has a piece on him for Salon. I always assumed that Ohio’s law stating that coaches (and all other school officials) have to report crimes involving students was kind of universal. Given that there was evidence presented during the Steubenville rape trial that demonstrated Saccoccia knew about the rape of a 16-year-old girl and didn’t say a word to the school or local law enforcement. So I’ll ask again, why is this man still employed?

 

Deadspin editor Barry Petchesky has the theory that like his players, Saccoccia believed he was above the law because they are local football celebrities. Additionally, Saccoccia is a pillar in the community: the football stadium is christened “Reno Field;” he has breakfast with the sheriff; he is in the Ohio Coaches Hall of Fame (we have one of those?); and he is a licensed mediator for the county’s juvenile courts.  Mays’ cellphone indicated that he texted a friend: “I got Reno. He took care of it and shit ain’t gonna happen, even if they did take it to court. Like he was joking about it so I’m not worried.”

 

Because no one in this town is worried apparently. Petchesky noted that “the players were convinced they were untouchable because they’d committed the rape on Saccoccia’s turf…They were right, for a while. If the Times hadn’t turned its eyes to Steubenville, and hacker groups not exposed the graphic evidence, it’s a legitimate question whether justice would have been done at all. Whether or not Saccoccia took a personal hand in protecting his players, the Steubenville reaction is a symptom of what happens in a football-mad small town run by a deified coach.”

 

I agree with a lot of what Petchesky is saying here except that the Times didn’t break the story, a local blogger did, and then Anonymous got involved and shit got real, fast. Secondly, as noted by Mcdonough, this isn’t just a small football-mad town’s culture, this is indicative of a culture where sexual assault is normalized and women are dehumanized. This happens a lot in high schools and colleges across the county, and it isn’t limited to small towns. It just manifests in different ways. I have my fingers-crossed that Saccoccia is one of the coaches interviewed by DeWine’s investigation and hopefully with an indictment from a grand jury to follow. 

 

Finally, I saw on AtlanticWire  this morning that Ma’Lik Richmond is going to appeal the decision because his brain wasn’t fully developed. #IHateEverything I'm beginning to understand that Steubenville slogan about "Roll, Red, Roll." This shit isn't going to end.